I think however the issue of brexit is a bit off topic. I was only mentioning it to demonstrate how younger voters are in strong disagreement with
decisions made regarding their future being made by older voters.

Yes I know they are - their lack of life experience drives that disagreement.

So what people disagree with you because of lack of life experience.

Rubbish.

I have a younger brother, he has two degrees, has traveled all over the world and been actively involved in politics, he is 25

But what because you are older than him your view carries more weight

No, younger people in general have less life experience and are less aware of the real world impacts of political decisions. That doesn't mean their
views carry less weight, they are just not as informed in general.

Your answer by the way, is a classic example... Having two degrees does not give one life experience or great judgement... those who have degrees
usually understand that when they get older.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who would think that Jeremy Corbyn is what the UK needs requires more than their heads to be looked at. This is a man who
wants to negotiate with ISIS.

As opposed to May who funds and Arms ISIS through the Saudi back door. As opposed to the tory Government who Bombed the # out of Libya destabilising
the whole country allowing ISIS/moderate rebels) to gain a foothold in the region eventually spilling into Syria... And to complete the circle we are
back to British armed Saudis who want Assad out and a new leader installed who will allow a pipeline to run through Syria.....And Corbyn's the
weasle?.

originally posted by: Indigohues
I wonder why we insist on voting for a leader. When the very act of doing so expresses the inability to self govern. And wonder why how we've become
enslaved? Our interpretation of government is in segments, phases and not in unified totality

We have no other option. Massive subject you bring up but.... As humans we cannot self govern, we would completely fail, even small tribes have
leaders... it's natural. However what we are caught in now is clearly not natural.

The latest poll just published shows a 5% gap. Labour started the campaign on 24%. They are on a roll and seriously looking at being in government,
or at least a " Hung Parliament " Teresa May and her cronies have blown it.

originally posted by: Indigohues
I wonder why we insist on voting for a leader.

In the UK we don't vote for a leader.

The people in the Islington North constituency will vote (or not) for Corbyn. The leader of the political party sets the tone and ethos for that
party. If Labour are successful then Corbyn will be Prime Minister and (frankly) the country will fall to pieces. If Labour are destroyed then
Corbyn may not survive the backlash within the party he leads.

I have voted Labour in the past, but won't vote for party that positions itself to the left i.e. its current incarnation. Labour is regressive. Like
the SNP who are also regressive, although bizarrely are trying to sell themselves as progressives! Work that one out! Wool and eyes come to mind
every time I listen the the Scottish nationalists!

Just to re-iterate a point I made earlier - this is NOT a Presidential election, it's not about Corbyn v May.
Vote for the candidate that will best represent you and your fellow constituents in Parliament.

Its ironically straightforward which is a rarity from me. I # you not. I've been literally perplexed at our collective need to play Russian roulette
with an Uzi. Its like all this bull# raining down on us all is due to submitting to one. Or rather forfeiting our individual sovereignty for the
comforts of foreign govern

originally posted by: Freeborn
Just to re-iterate a point I made earlier - this is NOT a Presidential election, it's not about Corbyn v May.
Vote for the candidate that will best represent you and your fellow constituents in Parliament.

A very good point sir.

It's interesting though how our media often portray it as a presidential election though don't you think

And this is how the cycle rolls on. We've muddled the logical and common sense with revolving trap doors of definitions or scales. We've #ed up the
moment we decided past a republic or federation of tribes consisting of sovereign enlightened individuals. And yes, these eras existed. By default
seeking a higher form of govern exalted the individual and collective expansion.

Interesting that the OP describes Labour as the party "of the working people".

What is meant by "working people", exactly? Do Conservatives not as a rule work for a living? Are High Court Judges included, for example, as
"working people", or is this some rose tinted and outmoded socialist class based concept?

Corbyn has never actually "worked" in a proper job in all his life, so how is he qualified to represent "working people" when he clearly has no
experience of actually "working" himself?

Quite apart from the fact that he was and still is a loathe some and weaselly apologist for and supporter of terrorism - the IRA, HAMAS, etc - along
with his fellow Marxist cronies like McMao and Abbott etc. And can anyone seriously imagine Dianne Abbott being up to the job of Home Secretary? Or
any job outside of politics for that matter.

Far from being idealistic, principled men and women of integrity, these people are actually (and not very far beneath the surface either) rabid hard
bitten ultra left-wing loonies who are full of hatred and bile and who should not be in charge of a houseplant, let alone a Country or even the
Labour Party which they and their ilk have unfortunately managed to hijack. Sadly, the Militant Tendency and their fellow travellers never went away,
it seems.

Yes they probably will, and I can't think of anything much worse for the UK.

But Labour and its inability to portray themselves as both an effective opposition or a viable alternative should bear the brunt of the blame.
Sure, this has been exacerbated by the Tory dominated MSM but can we expect anything else the way the world is today?

Ideally I'd like to see a hung parliament followed by a National Government, perhaps then we'd be able to get away from party dogma and concentrate on
doing what is best for this country and in accordance with the people's wishes and best interests and not those of a small elite.

If you strip down to the bloody dancing naked bones of what I'm saying. Contextually you realize my objective was leveled a leader. Or in this case a
body of fragmented government. ALL variations of government fail due to our lack of understanding that the expressions of government be it democracy
etc are only in a stage of another form yet ultimately only a limb or part of a more complex machinery. We keep using only a radiator to drive the
mobility of humanity. Party Affliation is merely calling dibs on the derilect abandoned lone tire on the freeway

You are seriously considering a candidate that wishes to negotiate with ISIS?

WOW

Yes, at least trying to talk to them is better than the current policy which is not working.

You want to negotiate with ISIS?

Corbyn is a long time terrorist sympathiser - honouring IRA members that were killed in a raid and inviting the IRA to a meeting just two weeks after
the Brighton bombing in 1984.

He is scum of the worst kind.

Negotiations with the IRA lead to the good Friday agreement, the honouring of IRA members was him saying he wanted to honour all of the dead during a
event in London.

It was over 20 years ago anyway.

Cornyn didn't negotiate with the IRA, he actively supported them. He has protested against anti-terror legislation for decades and is fully behind
cutting the defence budget at a time of global security instability.

Honouring the IRA is a heinous act. At no time has he paid any respect to the British armed forces, but has repeatedly extolled the virtues of
terrorist organisations who mean to do harm to the people of the UK.

His manifesto is the biggest work of fiction since the Koran and his funding plans look like they were made up on the back of a cigarette packet. His
front bench looks like a scene from the muppet show, but without the political nuance.

Yes they probably will, and I can't think of anything much worse for the UK.

But Labour and its inability to portray themselves as both an effective opposition or a viable alternative should bear the brunt of the blame.
Sure, this has been exacerbated by the Tory dominated MSM but can we expect anything else the way the world is today?

Ideally I'd like to see a hung parliament followed by a National Government, perhaps then we'd be able to get away from party dogma and concentrate on
doing what is best for this country and in accordance with the people's wishes and best interests and not those of a small elite.

Corbyn should have removed the Blairites first and foremost, He tried to reason with them. Massive failure from Corbyn. He had the opportunity to take
Labour back to the left where it belongs, but felt he needed to appeal to those centre left.
As far as i'm concerned you're either Left or Right, Middle ground is just for fence sitters. You know, in a way i'm kinda glad Labour wont be in
power when the 4 countries that make up the UK fall flat on there arses. The next decade is going to be horrendous for the Working class.

I'm leaning towards Labour this time despite some worries about Corbyn. It's such a shame that elections are now all about extremes and no middle
ground. Look at America having to choose between a moron and a liar or France having Macron or a right-wing nut. It's even a well known ploy in
marketing to prime consumers into making the decision they want us to - two extreme choices, one reasonable choice and people opt for the middle one.

In a way, Corbyn is our Trump. Not as in they're both idiots, but in the way Corbyn's a hope for change. Labour promise a slowing down of the growing
wealth gap and giving young families less of a financial burden. He's less likely to ride Trump's more war plans. The Tories are ruining education in
this country and Labour's plans will put the breaks on this elitist ethos that Gove epitomised and is still pursued by the DfE. The NHS will see some
extra funding too and maybe have some breathing space.

Downsides, for me, I think we need a strong Armed Forces and Corbyn's ethical foreign policies seem too weak. They might even invite problems here and
abroad. Labour are also idealistic where the Tories don't give a F. Too much idealism can bankrupt the UK and bills have to be paid. Labour's policies
look like a LOT of spending with no clear source of it all. Of course, as we see in America and almost France, if Labour failed, the result will be a
wild swing to the right. Our next govt would possibly be UKIP lol.

*If* I vote Labour, it will be a small middle finger to the same old same old. The Tories will win because they offer the most predictable future.

Truly the most slimy beings imaginable. Tories are not much better, but at least they have a semi-functional moral compass...

no, no and 100% no

1) The Toriesare the first party i nthe world found cuilty against the UN for crimes again humanity by killing over 100,000 disabled peopel any deying
them to right to existence -isntead of abiding by internatinol law the scumbag 'Disablity Minster' voted for them to have another £120 a week
removed.

2) 20 The tories seem disabled people as subheman and not worhty mof minimal wage, so should be paid £1 -2 p/p/h

3) They want to destroy the NHS to sell to their private healthcare mates so only the rich can afford treatment

4) the want t to coroperation tax to their cronies so everyone else has to fork in billions by losing £1,4000 avg earnings per month

5) They want to remove the rights of millions to vote

6) None of the manifesto its pricies - by May's own cabinet and ex-advisors it's 'drawn on a fag backet policy' that is noetner competent or acievable
in the real world.

7) The election launch was pure 'born to rule 'arrogant' etonial diatribe - thankfully they got show up for the charlatans they are.

8) May didn't eeven have the morality to be 'strong and stablr' enough to answer questions by the public and instead put stage managed audiences and
pre arranged answer inplace for pure propagranda and to remove remocratic debate - lplus was too lazy and a coawrd to turn up to debates on the
subject.

Still think she was my as polls gerenally swing to the right in the ballot box - but the words Tory and Moral should neer appear in the same sentence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.